We have a ruling from the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals - The Supreme Court’s interpretation ofthe Second Amendment therefore compels us to reversethe decisions in the two cases before us and remandthem to their respective district courts for the entryof declarations of unconstitutionality andpermanent injunctions.

Nevertheless we order our mandatestayed for 180 days to allow the Illinoislegislature to craft a new gun law that willimpose reasonable limitations, consistent with the publicsafety and the Second Amendment as interpreted inthis opinion, on the carrying of guns in public.REVERSED AND REMANDED, WITH DIRECTIONS;BUT MANDATE STAYED FOR 180 DAYS.

We win, the ban on carrying is unconstitutional!

"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

In sum, the empirical literature on the effects
of allowing the carriage of guns in public fails to establish
a pragmatic defense of the Illinois law.

Nevertheless we order our mandate
stayed for 180 days to allow the Illinois
legislature to craft a new gun law that will
impose reasonable limitations, consistent with the public
safety and the Second Amendment as interpreted in
this opinion, on the carrying of guns in public.

"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

Thanks for posting I have not yet read it either. The concluding sentence may be somewhat telling of the trajectory of the opinion ...

In the absence of clearer indication that the Second Amendment codified a generally recognized right to carry arms in public for self-defense, I would leave this judgment in the hands of the State of Illinois.

"It takes all the running you can do just to keep in the same place."Lewis Carroll, 1872

If the mere possibility that allowing guns to be carriedin public would increase the crime or death ratessufficed to justify a ban, Heller would have beendecided the other way, for that possibility was as greatin the District of Columbia as it is in Illinois.

my bold

"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The Supreme Court rejected the argument [collective right]. Theappellees ask us to repudiate the Court’s historical analysis.That we can’t do. Nor can we ignore the implicationof the analysis that the constitutional right of armed selfdefenseis broader than the right to have a gunin one’s home. The first sentence of the McDonaldopinion states that “two years ago, in District ofColumbia v. Heller, we held that the Second Amendmentprotects the right to keep and bear arms for the purposeof self-defense,” McDonald v. City of Chicago, supra, 130 S.Ct. at 3026, and later in the opinion we readthat “Heller explored the right’s origins, noting that the1689 English Bill of Rights explicitly protected a rightto keep arms for self-defense, 554 U.S. at 593, and thatby 1765, Blackstone was able to assert that the rightto keep and bear arms was ‘one of the fundamental rightsof Englishmen,’ id. at 594.” 130 S. Ct. at 3037. And immediatelythe Court adds that “Blackstone’s assessmentwas shared by the American colonists.” Id.Both Heller and McDonald do say that “the needfor defense of self, family, and property is most acute”in the home, id. at 3036 (emphasis added); 554 U.S. at628, but that doesn’t mean it is not acute outside the home.Heller repeatedly invokes a broader SecondAmendment right than the right to have a gun inone’s home, as when it says that the amendment“guarantee[s] the individual right to possess andNos. 12-1269, 12-1788 5carry weapons in case of confrontation.” 554 U.S. at 592.Confrontations are not limited to the home.The Second Amendment states in its entirety that “awell regulated Militia, being necessary to the securityof a free State, the right of the people to keep andbear Arms, shall not be infringed” (emphasis added).The right to “bear” as distinct from the right to “keep”arms is unlikely to refer to the home. To speak of “bearing”arms within one’s home would at all times have beenan awkward usage. A right to bear arms thus impliesa right to carry a loaded gun outside the home.

"It takes all the running you can do just to keep in the same place."Lewis Carroll, 1872

*&#%^! WOW! This is huge for Illinoisans outside of Chicago. I expect we'll be screwed again here in the City based on what they enacted after the ban was dropped, though. Time to move outside Cook, perhaps, and be free.

Blackstone described the right of armed self-preservationas a fundamental natural right of Englishmen, ona par with seeking redress in the courts or petitioningthe government. 1 Blackstone, supra, at 136,139–40. The Court in Heller inferred from this thateighteenth-century English law recognized a rightto possess guns for resistance, self-preservation, self-defense,and protection against both public andprivate violence. 554 U.S. at 594. The Court said thatAmerican law was the same. Id. at 594–95. And incontrast to the situation in England, in less peaceableAmerica a distinction between keeping arms for self-defensein the home and carrying them outside the homewould, as we said, have been irrational. All this is debatableof course, but we are bound by the SupremeCourt’s historical analysis because it was centralto the Court’s holding in Heller.

"It takes all the running you can do just to keep in the same place."Lewis Carroll, 1872

Hope no one minds me posting what I consider are seminal passages from this ruling ...

Twenty-first century Illinois has no hostile Indians.But a Chicagoan is a good deal more likely to beattacked on a sidewalk in a rough neighborhood than inhis apartment on the 35th floor of the Park Tower.A woman who is being stalked or has obtained aprotective order against a violent ex-husband is morevulnerable to being attacked while walking to or fromher home than when inside. She has a stronger self-defenseclaim to be allowed to carry a gun in public thanthe resident of a fancy apartment building (complete withdoorman) has a claim to sleep with a loaded gun underher mattress. But Illinois wants to deny the former claim,while compelled by McDonald to honor the latter.That creates an arbitrary difference. To confinethe right to be armed to the home is to divorce the SecondAmendment from the right of self-defense describedin Heller and McDonald.

"It takes all the running you can do just to keep in the same place."Lewis Carroll, 1872

Hopefully GOOD legislation like HB148 can be passed ASAP. I bet the Chicago-Anti Gun Pol's are wetting themselves right now. I will be first in line for a CC Permit once the requirments are hammered out.Ordering a P226 holster today; going out to buy a P239 tomorrow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The way it's worded, I'm hoping we can fight off restrictions on "special locations".

I wish we could do away with such locations, unless under direct police guard with controlled monitored (metal detectors, etc...) entrances, such as court houses, but I think we'll have to give ground on this one. That doesn't mean we won't make that ground back up in a year or two when the streets stop running red with blood. (as they already are running red with blood because of the unarmed public)

Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum.

The opinions expressed by this poster do not reflect the official stance of Illinois Carry. Apparently there was some confusion on the part of at least one person that it does, and I want to make things clear that my opinion is my own and that whatever the official stance of IC is or is not at present, it may or may not reflect my own opinion.

I don't friggin' believe it. I had given up hope, but it looks like Bud was RIGHT!
Glad I bought my PF9 this summer (and took care of its obligatory 3 trips back to the manuf.), because I have a feeling carry guns are going to be a hot commodity in IL soon!

As long as the final law doesn't end up looking like New York's (which was cited by both majority and dissenting opinions), I will be happy. If I have to pay $100-200 for an 8-hour class and a background check, I will be happy. If I have to somehow prove to someone (local sheriff) that I "need" to carry, because of an actual credible threat, I'll be very disappointed. I'm guessing the only time there will be a credible and verifiable threat to my life is when it's standing in front of me. It's just as likely to be a wild animal as it is a person!